re: reply from Michael Stone

[Teresa Van Hove <tvanhove@uswest.net>]

Michael Stone writes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
The FEI is extremely concerned about the welfare of the horse, it is one
of our most basic rules. ( Our code of condust can be seen on our web
site www.horsesport.org and is printed in every schedule and programme 
of every internationl event)

We are continually revising our rules to protect horses and are now in
the process of introducing stricter qualifications for horses and riders 
and stricter training and approval for officials. However this is
a slow process, but we will ensure the welfare of our horses. In this
regard I think we should consider the completion rates. It is the FEIs
belief that a low completion rate is not nessecarily a bad thing
providing the pulled horses are fit to compete again in a short time.
This low completion only shows the vets are being strict. What we will
not acvcept is a high completion rate and many horses out of action for
months afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This statement would carry a lot more weight with me if the FEI had not
set a maximum finishing time of 17 hours.  After 3.5 hours of holds the
horses had 13.5 hours of riding time.  Thats a 12 km/hour pace, about
7.4 mph. While that is not a blistering fast pace, I suspect that
dropping the required pace to 10 to 11 km/hour would have boosted the
completion rate with NO negative effects on horses welfare.  Does anyone
know if a human runner is eliminated from a marathon if they run below a
certain pace?  

I don't have a problem with setting a faster pace than the typical 8
km/hr for general AERC events for a world championship, but this was a
150% increase in mandatory pace, seems overly rigorous to me.  I think
both a higher completion percentage AND healthy looking horses at the
finish are necessary to present endurance in a positive light to the
general public. If FEI truly wants to promote endurance they should
perhaps work to avoid the perception to the general public that only 40%
of the horses at the top level are capable of completing a 100 mile
ride.  

Sincerely,
Teresa Van Hove

---- Begin included message ----

• To: tvanhove@uswest.net
• Subject: (no subject)
• From: "Teresa Van Hove" <vanhove@ucar.edu>
• Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:50:02 -0600
• Delivered-To: tvanhove@mail-dnvr.uswest.net
• Organization: GST
• Sender: vanhove@ucar.edu

Michael Stone writes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
The FEI is extremely concerned about the welfare of the horse, it is one
of our most basic 
rules. ( Our code of condust can be seen on our web site
www.horsesport.org and is printed in every schedule and programme 
of every internationl event)

We are continually revising our rules to protect horses and are now in
the 
process of introducing stricter qualifications for horses and riders 
and stricter training and approval for officials. However this is
a slow process, but we will ensure the welfare of our horses. In this
regard I think we should consider the completion rates. It is the FEIs
belief that
a low completion rate is not nessecarily a bad thing providing
the pulled horses are fit to compete again in a short time. This low
completion
only shows the vets are being strict. What we will not acvcept is a high
completion rate 
and many horses out of action for months afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This statement would carry a lot more weight with me if the FEI had not
set a minimum finishing time of 17 hours.  After 3.5 hours of holds the
horses had 13.5 hours of riding time.  Thats a 12 km/hour pace - or
about 7.4 mph. While that is not a blistering fast pace, I suspect that
dropping the required pace to 10 to 11 km/hour would have boosted the
completion rate with NO negative effects on horses welfare.  Does anyone
know if a human runner is eliminated from a marathon if they run below a
certain pace?  

I don't have a problem with setting a faster pace than the typical 8
km/hr for general AERC events for a world championship, but this was a
150% increase in mandatory pace, seems overly rigorous to me.  I think
both a higher completion percentage AND healthy looking horses at the
finish are necessary to present endurance in a positive light to the
general public. If FEI truly wants to promote endurance they should
perhaps work to avoid the perception to the general public that only 40%
of horses at the top level are capable of completing a 100 mile ride.  

Sincerely,
Teresa Van Hove

---- End included message ----